Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1076
SZIAA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 737 OF 2006
COWDROY J
16 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 737 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIAA
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 16 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $3,200. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 737 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIAA
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 16 AUGUST 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Driver FM which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. In its decision, the Tribunal had found that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 16 May 2004. On 10 June 2004 he made application to the first respondent for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 1 July 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused the visa application and on 27 July 2005 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant is a pharmacist who had previously worked in a hospital in Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu, until July 2003. He had formerly lived with a close friend, Mr Kumar. The appellant claimed that he and Mr Kumar had assisted another friend, Mr Venkatesh, to elope with his girlfriend. The couple were from different castes and the marriage was opposed by both of their families. Nonetheless, with the assistance of the appellant and Mr Kumar they were married in June 2003. 4 The appellant claimed that following the wedding the wife's brother threatened to kill the appellant and Mr Kumar. The appellant resigned from his job and hid in a friend's house. In December 2003 Mr Kumar died. The police recorded Mr Kumar's death as a suicide, but the appellant, believing that he had been killed by the wife's brother, fled to Australia. 5 The appellant claimed that he could not live elsewhere in India because of language barriers. He could read and write English but did not speak Hindi.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate